The present study investigated professionals' assessments of a sickness benefit 180-day rule investigation. A new type of vignette was used where an authentic and anonymized investigation was manipulated into two versions; approved or denied in a simple experimental between-subjects design. Dependent measures were subjective ratings of agreement with the decision, transparency, and logical stringency. The results showed high levels of participant agreement between the two conditions even though half had the opposite decision. Should this result be general, then one could simply take a sickness benefit 180-day rule investigation, change decisions, and professionals would be none the wiser. However, this result must be replicated multiple times using varied investigations in terms of typicality, complexity, and professionals' experience and education before such a conclusion can be made.